Limbaugh safe from voter-fraud charges

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/03/28/JAIL_RUSH.ART_ART_03-28-08_A8_HV9P3PM.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101



Limbaugh safe from voter-fraud charges
Radio host encouraged fans to vote Democratic
Friday, March 28, 2008 2:59 AM
By Mark Niquette

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has been telling his audience for days now that he could be indicted for encouraging Ohio Republicans to take a Democratic ballot in the March 4 primary in what he calls "Operation Chaos."

Could that actually happen?

Not likely, Ohio officials say.

"We have no intention of prosecuting Rush Limbaugh because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn't a crime," said Leo Jennings, a spokesman for Democratic Attorney General Marc Dann. :lol

When asked whether she has concerns about what Limbaugh did, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, replied, "I think it's very bad form, but I think most voters are intelligent enough to make their own decisions."

Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states holding presidential primaries is designed to help presumptive Republican nominee John McCain win the Nov. 4 election.

The idea is to encourage Republicans in those states to vote for Hillary Clinton as a way to prolong the Democratic fight for the nomination with Barack Obama, possibly making it more difficult for Democrats to unite in the fall.

Some critics have complained that Limbaugh is improperly encouraging voters to break the law.

In Ohio, party-switchers are supposed to sign a form attesting, under penalty of election falsification -- a felony -- that they support the principles of the party whose ballot they are obtaining.

But Jennings said it would be difficult to prosecute anyone because they also have constitutionally protected freedom of speech and it's hard to prove voter intent.

"You can't just make the assumption that someone is lying," Jennings said.

Neither Limbaugh nor a spokesman could be reached, but Limbaugh has a transcript posted on his Web site addressing listeners concerned about being charged with voter fraud.

"I wouldn't worry about it," Limbaugh said. "Look at this as a badge of honor, ladies and gentlemen. If anybody gets indicted, if anybody has to go jail, it will be me -- and I'll do my program from jail for the short amount of time I will be there before I am excused and the charges dismissed.

"I had the temerity, ladies and gentlemen, to tinker with a tradition, a liberal Democrat tradition: voter manipulation."

Hush is such an idiot..

[Nbadan]

..I told you it was voter fraud...

[RandomGuy]

because lying through your teeth and being stupid isn't a crime," said Leo Jennings, a spokesman for Democratic Attorney General Marc Dann.

heh, ok that's funny.

[Nbadan]

Rush is an idiot, but even some idiots need to be prosecuted....

[xrayzebra]

..I told you it was voter fraud...

Were they going to prosecute Obama and Hillary for
attempting the get people to cross over?

And yeah, that damn Rush, what an Idiot. Only 19 million
listeners and how many millions has he made. Damn
idiot.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

..I told you it was voter fraud...how is this voter fraud. nbadan, kill your neighbor. you have a choice. no gun is to your head.

[Nbadan]

It's voter fraud to tell people to cross party lines and vote for a opposing candidate because you want them to win a primary so that your candidate has a greater chance to defeat them in the Generals....the law is not ambiguous on this....

[Wild Cobra]

It's voter fraud to tell people to cross party lines and vote for a opposing candidate because you want them to win a primary so that your candidate has a greater chance to defeat them in the Generals....the law is not ambiguous on this....
By what was written already, it is very ambiguous. Have you read the law as written? If so, please enlighten us. If not, please take off those colored glasses, stop sipping the Kool-Aid, and think.


In Ohio, party-switchers are supposed to sign a form attesting, under penalty of election falsification -- a felony -- that they support the principles of the party whose ballot they are obtaining.
Interesting. How do you even test such a law? I swear. Do any of you liberals think before making statements?

Must you 100% support the party? Must you support the party you register for more than any other party? Would it only be false swearing if you only had zero % support of the party? What about 50%?

I'm sorry, but most conservatives and republicans do support most of the principles the democrats write in any statement of the democrat party. We just don't support the way they want to do things. Their party statements never say what they really want to do like raise taxes...

I support most the principles myself, as written. Does that legally mean I would be committing a crime if I registered as a democrat in Ohio?


..I told you it was voter fraud...
How can it be fraud? It is transparent...

When I first saw this title, I thought it would be about Rush's claim he owns some of the democrat superdelegates.

Anyone know about this?

Anyway, back to supporting the democrat party. Fron their web site:

ISSUES (http://www.ohiodems.org/site/c.mhLRKZPCLmF/b.3673979/):


What We Have Accomplished

* Building a Stronger Economy by restoring budget discipline, creating jobs, and investing in long-term financial security programs.
Republican and conservatives are for this aren't they?


* Providing Affordable Health Care by covering all of Ohio’s children, increasing access for low-income individuals, and promoting preventative care to keep coverage costs down.
This is a good thing in principle. Notice how they never say how far they want to take such programs anytime they write down their ideals and principles?



* Strengthening Public Education by investing in early childhood programs, making college more affordable, holding schools accountable, and retaining talented Ohio students after graduation.
Again, we could as easily be reading such statements from a republican site.



* Restoring Trust in Government by ending the GOP “business as usual” approach, holding elected officials and their staffs to the highest ethical standards, and ending pay-to-play politics.
LOL... Republicans also want to end the business as usual approach. The part of holding the highest of ethical standards for democrats is laughable. When do they do that? Again, it's a republican theme.



* Securing Fair & Honest Elections by evaluating Ohio’s voting system, promoting civic engagement, and employing a reliable system to audit and verify election results.
This sounds pretty good too.



* Protecting Ohio Consumers by standing up for consumers’ rights and not the interests of high dollar industries, holding businesses accountable, and promoting a business culture based on fairness and honesty.
What can I say. Most of these principles are also supported by republicans. Therefore, how does the law make it illegal for a republican to register democrat?

[possessed]

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/03/28/JAIL_RUSH.ART_ART_03-28-08_A8_HV9P3PM.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101




Hush is such an idiot..
Is he? His little plan has worked to perfection.

How is Air America doing these days?

[Wild Cobra]

How is Air America doing these days?
I don't think most people know what Air America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_Radio) is, and they might think you are talking about the past CIA operation.

Sadly, they are doing good here in (Moscow on the Willamete) Portland, OR. From the wiki link:


In Arbitron's Winter 2006 ratings book, the most recent available as of May 2006, ratings at Air America stations nationwide averaged a 1.2 share in markets for which Arbitron reports results four times a year.

Some of the network's highest ratings come from station KPOJ in Portland, Oregon, where the station ranks second among AM stations and sixth overall. Other markets with previously high ratings include Seattle and Madison, Wisconsin. WXXM in Madison had announced on November 10, 2006 it would switch to all sports programming by the end of the year. Following a very vocal backlash from the station's listeners and syndicated hosts, Clear Channel in Madison later backtracked, deciding to leave the progressive talk format on the station.

[Don Quixote]

Gosh, liberals are fit to be tied over this! Are some of you guys angry 24-7?

Really ... liberals need to get a grip.

You control Congress, and will most likely hold onto it after the November elections. You have the Supreme Court and most of the district courts. You have the majority of the media to influence opinion. And you're going to get a President who will side with you on most of the issues, even in your worst-case scenario (a McCain victory).

So calm down. Drink a chai tea, and relax.

[FromWayDowntown]

I have no idea why it would be voter fraud to attempt to push people who are unwilling to think for themselves into voting in a particular way. Candidates do that all the time. As do their supporters.

If some rank-and-file Republican voter went out on a street corner with a bullhorn attempting to persuade other Republicans to vote for Clinton, there would be no fraud there. That's politics.

That Limbaugh has a radio show and a particular agenda doesn't make his efforts fraudulent. If anything, it may just go to show how readily-malleable many in his audience are. In that sense, it might actually prove to be a public service.

Definitely not fraud, though.

[Ocotillo]

Gosh, liberals are fit to be tied over this! Are some of you guys angry 24-7?

Some are, like some conservatives whine with a victim complex 24/7.


You control Congress, and will most likely hold onto it after the November elections. You have the Supreme Court and most of the district courts. You have the majority of the media to influence opinion. And you're going to get a President who will side with you on most of the issues, even in your worst-case scenario (a McCain victory).

So calm down. Drink a chai tea, and relax.

They control the House. The Senate is basically tied as Judas Lieberman claims to caucas with the Democrats but is really a GOPer on a lot of issues. McCain is not going to be Democrat friendly, he talks a good game but when the rubber meets the road, he is a third term of Bush. The Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives as well. For God's sake Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote these days! And I'm a Pomegranete Green Tea guy myself. :drunk

[Don Quixote]

I'm just trying to make you guys feel better. I can certainly understand the angst many libs feel -- this vision of a big grand engineered society where all rely on a large benevolent govt is being ripped from you.

But in a larger context, liberals get so worked up over things that are largely out of our control. Big oil, war, corporate America, and who's in government. Conservatism, on the other hand, is as much a mentality as it is a political philosophy. A true conservative does not wake up in the morning thinking about what's wrong with America, what sucks, who's getting screwed by whom, or how he's missed out on his chance to succeed. The conservative looks at America with gratitude and thanksgiving, and most certainly does not base his happiness on who is sitting in the White House. And if Obama or Hillary win it, the sun will still rise tomorrow for us. Contrast this to the genuine angst and seething rage directed towards Pres. Bush --I've never seen anything like it.

So ... take it from a friendly conservative. Just calm down and relax. Drink some green tea, or a cold beer.

[Don Quixote]

Some are, like some conservatives whine with a victim complex 24/7.


They control the House. The Senate is basically tied as Judas Lieberman claims to caucas with the Democrats but is really a GOPer on a lot of issues. McCain is not going to be Democrat friendly, he talks a good game but when the rubber meets the road, he is a third term of Bush. The Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives as well. For God's sake Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote these days! And I'm a Pomegranete Green Tea guy myself. :drunk

Yes, and I would recommend to my fellow conservatives, and evangelicals, to not complain so much, and avoid even the appearance of it. Let not your heart be troubled.

Now, as for your contention that the Senate is tied -- yes, the numbers say 51-49, but do remember that quite a few of the Republicans are not very conservative (e.g., Spector, Chafee, McCain). And they have been very friendly to big-spending programs so loved/needed by Democrats. I imagine that will continue after the election.

Furthermore, McCain has made it his legacy to reach across the aisle. Remember McCain-Feingold? He's basically in the global warming camp, he's okay with amnesty for illegals, and he led the charge against aggressive treatment of terrorists. Whether or not you agree with his actual positions, you can't really deny the fact that he's cooperated with the other party far more than have Hillary or Obama.

And, even with the recent appointments of Roberts and Alito, I understand that there are still only 4 true-blue conservatives on the Supreme Court. A change from the uber-liberal courts of the 70s, but still not really "controlled" by us. And I wouldn't expect that to change under a McCain presidency. Obama or Hillary, on the other hand, would probably appoint very liberal judges, and actually get them confirmed.

So ... your angst and anger is unjustified. You're winning.

[PixelPusher]

And if Obama or Hillary win it, the sun will still rise tomorrow for us. Contrast this to the genuine angst and seething rage directed towards Pres. Bush --I've never seen anything like it.

Then you must have been living in a cave during the Clinton years.

[Nbadan]

I'm sorry, but most conservatives and republicans do support most of the principles the democrats write in any statement of the democrat party. We just don't support the way they want to do things. Their party statements never say what they really want to do like raise taxes...

That's because party statements don't include wing-nut spin.....Democrats like to pay for things as they go.....and maybe pay off some of Dubya's $3.5 trillion dollar debt too...

[Nbadan]

thought it would be about Rush's claim he owns some of the democrat superdelegates.

Get a clue...Rush sold his soul to the Neo-Cons years ago...there's nothing even remotely fiscally conservative and him anymore....so when he says 'he' owns some Demo super-delegates what he really means is that the Neo-cons control some Demo Super-delegates...and I can name two Nancy Pelosi, for taking impeachment of the table, and William Jefferson for taking Abramoff money.....

[Nbadan]

Is he? His little plan has worked to perfection.

How is Air America doing these days?


Really? How did it work perfection? Obama is the Democratic Candidate for President, no matter what any wing-nuts in the M$M say, or Hitlary Clinton for that matter......and many people have seen a very nasty side of Hillary that perhaps they didn't know existed...by going racial over Pastor Jerome Wright's comments that were taken out of context by FAUX News and then lying about Bosnia, about peace in Ireland....she has ruined her chance of being the V.P. in a Obama administration too....


...as far as Air America. who cares?

[Nbadan]

You have the Supreme Court and most of the district courts. You have the majority of the media to influence opinion. And you're going to get a President who will side with you on most of the issues, even in your worst-case scenario (a McCain victory).

The Democrats don't control the Supreme Court....get a clue...most of the M$M are whores...the drive up to the Iraq war is all the proof you need....they didn't ask the hard questions...they certainly didn't do any 'to catch a predator' type investigations to catch the NeoCon plotting in the Cheney-backed OSP that was fabricating, sensationalizing, and distorting information about Al-Quedea and Iraqi WMD....

[Nbadan]

I have no idea why it would be voter fraud to attempt to push people who are unwilling to think for themselves into voting in a particular way. Candidates do that all the time. As do their supporters.

If some rank-and-file Republican voter went out on a street corner with a bullhorn attempting to persuade other Republicans to vote for Clinton, there would be no fraud there. That's politics.

That Limbaugh has a radio show and a particular agenda doesn't make his efforts fraudulent. If anything, it may just go to show how readily-malleable many in his audience are. In that sense, it might actually prove to be a public service.

Definitely not fraud, though.

Well, let's say your boss hog for podunk county Texas and for the first time in your illustrious rule you have a political opponent who wants to 'reform the corruption in county gov'ment'....well, since your boss hog and you ain't got no opposition in your own party, you tell your supporters to vote for Enis the horse against 'the reformer' before other people brighten up and join his crusade.....

....do you see what what Rush is doing is so dangerous and illegal....

[Nbadan]

But in a larger context, liberals get so worked up over things that are largely out of our control. Big oil, war, corporate America, and who's in government. Conservatism, on the other hand, is as much a mentality as it is a political philosophy. A true conservative does not wake up in the morning thinking about what's wrong with America, what sucks, who's getting screwed by whom, or how he's missed out on his chance to succeed. The conservative looks at America with gratitude and thanksgiving, and most certainly does not base his happiness on who is sitting in the White House. And if Obama or Hillary win it, the sun will still rise tomorrow for us. Contrast this to the genuine angst and seething rage directed towards Pres. Bush --I've never seen anything like it.

Dude...you've drank way too much of that Red Koolaid...

[xrayzebra]

That's because party statements don't include wing-nut spin.....Democrats like to pay for things as they go.....and maybe pay off some of Dubya's $3.5 trillion dollar debt too...

You gotta be kidding me. Hey they
controlled Congress for 40 years and
I don't think they balanced the budget
except for one year when Ike was
President.

[possessed]

Really? How did it work perfection? Obama is the Democratic Candidate for President, no matter what any wing-nuts in the M$M say, or Hitlary Clinton for that matter......and many people have seen a very nasty side of Hillary that perhaps they didn't know existed...by going racial over Pastor Jerome Wright's comments that were taken out of context by FAUX News and then lying about Bosnia, about peace in Ireland....she has ruined her chance of being the V.P. in a Obama administration too....
Hillary's taking it all the way to the convention while making Obama spend more money than he'd have to if he was anointed the Dem candidate a month ago. Keeping Hillary alive means she takes all the cheap shots at Barack, she digs up the dirt while McCain gleefully watches. McCain has leapfrogged Obama in national polls as a result of the dems eating their own, and it's still not close to being over.

Putting a little tarnish on that Clinton "legacy" ain't such a bad thing either.


...as far as Air America. who cares?
Nobody. That's the point.

[Wild Cobra]

and what about clinton
Clinton's budget was not balanced. It was accounting trick.

Think about it, did the debt increase or decrease?

It increased, hence, not balanced.

Maybe he didn't count interest on the debt, maybe they counted the social security excesses. I'm not sure what they did, but president Clinton did not have a surplus. Besides, there are factor that did help reduce the deficit spending.

Y2K scare

Internet burst

Growing economy

republican congress

These are things that happened outside of any Clinton policy. He was just in the right place at the right time to see reduced deficits.

[RandomGuy]

Clinton's budget was not balanced. It was accounting trick.

Think about it, did the debt increase or decrease?

It increased, hence, not balanced.

Maybe he didn't count interest on the debt, maybe they counted the social security excesses. I'm not sure what they did, but president Clinton did not have a surplus. Besides, there are factor that did help reduce the deficit spending.

Y2K scare

Internet burst

Growing economy

republican congress

These are things that happened outside of any Clinton policy. He was just in the right place at the right time to see reduced deficits.

Between Clinton and the GOP controlled congress, they managed to reduce the overall level of debt relative to GDP.

It was pretty much an accounting trick as the majority of the "surplus" was in revenue that went to the SS fund, if memory serves.

He was in the right place at the right time, but was responsible enough not to push for any huge increases in federal spending for existing programs.

[Wild Cobra]

Between Clinton and the GOP controlled congress, they managed to reduce the overall level of debt relative to GDP.

It was pretty much an accounting trick as the majority of the "surplus" was in revenue that went to the SS fund, if memory serves.

He was in the right place at the right time, but was responsible enough not to push for any huge increases in federal spending for existing programs.
Guess what. The debt to GDP trend has continued with president Bush, even with this war!

[RandomGuy]

Guess what. The debt to GDP trend has continued with president Bush, even with this war!


Sort of.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debtfull.gif

National Income is another matter.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/natdebt-vs-natincome.gif


I wonder where we would be if we had not had to pay out for the Iraq war.


Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?


I think that given the spiralling costs of the above named weapons systems, it would be interesting to see how that pans out in todays costs.

[Wild Cobra]

Sort of.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debtfull.gif

I wonder where we would be if we had not had to pay out for the Iraq war.
Good question, but according to your graph, it started just after 9/11. The end of 2000 was a also the start of a recession. It's hard to point out the effects of any one single type of expendature on your graph.

Maybe I'm wrong about the debt ratio, maybe its just a different calculation. At this point, I don't know The graph you supplied does make more sense.

Now consider this before you blame the war. We didn't enter it till 2003. We had 9/11, Katrina, and a couple other spendy ventures besides the war. From the site you like, here is another graph:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/fedcomp.gif

Here is a synopsys:


The BIG CULPRIT (rising red line) is SOCIAL SPENDING, which grew 14 times faster than the economy - - to a new high - - more than eating up the long-term decline of defense spending ratios shown by the black line in the chart. The full report (link below) shows once the social spending ratio rose above 5% of national income in the late 1960s, citizen trust in government plummeted to half prior levels - - and inflation-adjusted median family incomes stagnated for all families and fell for single wage-earner families. Note social spending (red line) stopped rising in the early 1980s as if it hit a brick wall, and then fell - - and other data show trust in government surged, only to fall back later as social spending ratios again climbed. This is a powerful finding that deserves more attention. (the full report contains a link to a special report and chart on citizen trust polling data).

This trend (red line) is unique in U.S. history.

National security was the prime reason our founding forefathers formed a federal government. The declining black trend line is defense spending, which in 2001 had dropped to 3.7% of the economy's national income, below where it started - following a 5-decade downward slope. The black defense line for 2003-06 increased to 4.9% of national income as shown in the graphic. This multi-decade declining defense ratio camouflaged a new direction for government - - surging social programs and spending.

This trend calls into question our nation's focus and readiness to detect and deter major national security challenges - - compared to the priority focus outlined by our nation's founding fathers.

So defense spending went up by 1.2% over that period of war. Social spending went up even farther is the graph is accurate! I'm pretty certain the trend of the debt would be the same, just not as high without the war. I say let's reign in social spending.